date:20091119

Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or
referenced from a goverment site. I searched and couldn't find any
official reference. If it's an unclassified document, it must be published
by the agency that unclassified it.
In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still
argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a
fake/it's not official.

Best regards,
Mauro



 They have been trumped by a government document and know their previous
 positions are now all compromised. They built aÂ house of cards and here
 comes the wind Â  :_)

 -Fran






 - Original Message -
 From: Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:27:01 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

 endless fun. where's my rubber mallet so i can hit my forehead with it
 continuously


 On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jed Rothwell  jedrothw...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


 In a way, ya gotta love these people! See:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#U.S._Defense_Intelligence_Agency_document

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

2009-11-19 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence

Harry Veeder wrote:

 - Original Message 
 From: Steven Krivit stev...@newenergytimes.com
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tue, November 17, 2009 4:07:53 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Energy Times News Flash: DoD Report Released

 At 07:37 AM 11/17/2009, you wrote:
 Is the DIA a parody of the CIA?

They're a spy shop run out of the DOD, as I recall; the CIA is
independent, sort of.

They're real, all right.

 profound question 

 Honestly, I had never heard of agency until now.
 Googling DIA didn't produce any relevant links. This was surprising
 since googling CIA produces many relevant links.

The CIA is far more above board about a lot of their activities, and
they do stuff like publish the CIA Factbook which has heaps of useful
information about the political world around us.

As far as I know the DIA doesn't do anything public.

 Now I see if you google Defense Intelligence Agency you do get some relevant 
 links.
 ;-)
 harry

   __
 Connect with friends from any web browser - no download required. Try the new 
 Yahoo! Canada Messenger for the Web BETA at 
 http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

Mauro Lacy wrote:

Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or
 referenced from a goverment site.


Yes, it would be better, but the DIA does not do that. So that's not an
option.


I searched and couldn't find any
 official reference. If it's an unclassified document, it must be published
 by the agency that unclassified it.


It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released on
Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do you
think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency?



 In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still
 argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a
 fake/it's not official.


By that standard we would not believe the ERAB report is real, or the
comments made by the 2004 DoE reviewers. Or any of hundreds of skeptical
papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics would
never apply that standard to those documents because they support the
skeptical point of view. Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote:

[The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable
unless they are adressed by secondary sources.

He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason.

The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss or ignore
evidence they do not want to see.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

2009-11-19 Thread Alexander Hollins

okay, WHERE was it published, is the big question.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 Mauro Lacy wrote:

 Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or
 referenced from a goverment site.

 Yes, it would be better, but the DIA does not do that. So that's not an
 option.


 I searched and couldn't find any
 official reference. If it's an unclassified document, it must be published
 by the agency that unclassified it.

 It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released on
 Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do you
 think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency?



 In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still
 argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a
 fake/it's not official.

 By that standard we would not believe the ERAB report is real, or the
 comments made by the 2004 DoE reviewers. Or any of hundreds of skeptical
 papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics would
 never apply that standard to those documents because they support the
 skeptical point of view. Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote:

 [The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable
 unless they are adressed by secondary sources.

 He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason.

 The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss or ignore
 evidence they do not want to see.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

 Mauro Lacy wrote:

 Yes, but it would be better if that document could be downloaded and/or
 referenced from a goverment site.


 Yes, it would be better, but the DIA does not do that. So that's not an
 option.


 I searched and couldn't find any
 official reference. If it's an unclassified document, it must be
 published
 by the agency that unclassified it.


 It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released
 on
 Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do
 you
 think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency?



 In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still
 argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a
 fake/it's not official.


 By that standard we would not believe the ERAB report is real, or the
 comments made by the 2004 DoE reviewers. Or any of hundreds of skeptical
 papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics
 would
 never apply that standard to those documents because they support the
 skeptical point of view. Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte
 wrote:

 [The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable
 unless they are adressed by secondary sources.

 He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason.

 The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss or
 ignore
 evidence they do not want to see.

I'm only saying that I think that's a valid option for them at the moment,
at least with regard to that document. Maybe I'm wrong, because as you
said, you would not get into the trouble of publishing something in the
name of a federal agency. Although you can argument good faith, i.e. that
you presumed it was an official document... although then you'll have to
explain how you got that document, etc. etc.
I'm playing the skeptic game here, and as we can see, it does not go very
far.

The latest comments on the wikipedia talk page are a little bit confusing,
to say the least.

Best regards,
Mauro

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

Jed sez:

...

 It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released on
 Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do you
 think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency?

I presume not! ;-)

...but that does not answer the principal question: How does one
verify its pedigree?

For those of us (particularly me!) who may not be as quick witted as
you appear to be can you clarify how you went about verifying the
presumed legitimacy of this report?

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


Steven V Johnson wrote:


...but that does not answer the principal question: How does one
verify its pedigree?

For those of us (particularly me!) who may not be as quick witted as
you appear to be can you clarify how you went about verifying the
presumed legitimacy of this report?


Ask the authors, I guess.

I am sure of the pedigree because the authors sent me the document. 
If you (or the skeptics at Wikipedia) are not sure of the pedigree, I 
suggest y'all ignore the document. It is not all that important. I 
mean, it is a fine job and I am glad they wrote it, but there is 
nothing in that paper that Storms, McKubre or I have not said dozens 
of times before. It is hardly a revelation.


More to the point, you can independently confirm everything in it 
from the sources listed in the footnotes. Most of them are 
conveniently available at LENR-CANR.org. So what difference does it 
make whether this actually a fully approved policy paper from the DIA 
or not? You can see for yourself that it is well-sourced and indisputable.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

Jed sez:

 Steven V Johnson wrote:

 ...but that does not answer the principal question: How does one
 verify its pedigree?

 For those of us (particularly me!) who may not be as quick witted as
 you appear to be can you clarify how you went about verifying the
 presumed legitimacy of this report?

 Ask the authors, I guess.

You guess???

 I am sure of the pedigree because the authors sent me the document.

That's a good point. Thanks for revealing that little tidbit. It helps
legitimize the source, at least for me. One would have to be an idiot
to presume all the authors had been systematically sent this faked
DIA document in a sinister plan to discredit the field of research. Of
course, the belief in such conspiracies runs rampant within certain
sectors of the UFO community.

 If you (or the skeptics at Wikipedia) are not sure of the pedigree,

Just to be clear on this point, I wish to clarify how best to answer
rabid skeptics. I suspect Ask[ing] the authors is not likely to be
seen as a definitive answer. ;-)

 I suggest y'all ignore the document. It is not all that important.
 I mean, it is a fine job and I am glad they wrote it, but there is
 nothing in that paper that Storms, McKubre or I have not said
 dozens of times before. It is hardly a revelation.

Surely you realize the DIA report is NOT about to be ignored.

 More to the point, you can independently confirm everything in it
 from the sources listed in the footnotes. Most of them are
 conveniently available at LENR-CANR.org. So what difference does it
 make whether this actually a fully approved policy paper from the DIA
 or not? You can see for yourself that it is well-sourced and
  indisputable.

I certainly do not dispute this. However, and as I'm sure you know,
many skeptics use circuitous reasoning. They will refuse to accept the
basis of such information because they have already banned the
original sources of these reports from Wikipedia. It makes life
easier for them.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


Alexander Hollins wrote:


okay, WHERE was it published, is the big question.


At the Defense Intelligence Agency, document DIA-08-0911-003, like it 
says. Maybe I misunderstand this comment.


I suppose you mean WHERE on the web was it published. Nowhere as far 
as I know. We have lots of documents at LENR-CANR published by 
various government agencies, China Lake, BARC, the NCFI, various 
universities and so on, which were never published by them on the 
web. Only by me. Still, they are published. No one questions their 
pedigree or legitimacy. (No one, that is, except for some skeptical 
nutcases who claimed I foged them. As if I could forge thousands of 
pages of technical papers!)




I'm only saying that I think that's a valid option for them at the moment,
at least with regard to that document.


Valid, schmalid. It is just silly. If they don't want to believe this 
is a genuine document, that's their problem. They will never allow a 
link to a document like this anyway. They can't link to my copy 
(Wikipedia automatically rejects links to LENR-CANR.org) and they 
wouldn't want to link to Krivit's copy.




The latest comments on the wikipedia talk page are a little bit confusing,
to say the least.


They are. That's because Krivit uploaded a short message from the DIA 
to him, and to me, actually, asking us to remove the copy. That's 
kind of embarrassing and I was hoping the subject would not come up. 
Apparently it was not slated for full release until yesterday 
afternoon. I thought it was okay to upload. The cover letter said: 
The paper is unclassified so feel free to forward it to whomever you 
think would be interested . . . So I figured that's everyone in the 
world. I uploaded and informed the author. As I noted here, I asked 
the DIA for a better copy in Acrobat text format.


Anyway, yesterday before lunch they told me it was not fully, 100% 
released yet so please remove it. After lunch they sent another 
message saying don't worry, everything is fine now, leave it. That 
message was copied to various people in the DIA so I am sure it is okay.


(By the way, they said they can't provide it in Acrobat text format. A shame.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

Jed sez:

 (By the way, they said they can't provide it in Acrobat text format.
  A shame.)

Another fine example of our tax dollars working for our benefit!

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.orionworks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

Thanks Jed for the clarification.
There's a new comment by V now on wikipedia, stating that
public(unclassified) documents are, erm, public. So, no take down is
legally enforceable.
And also raising the question of how to deal with government documents
which are unclassified, but not published on the internet. A good point to
be made in Wikipedia, I think, for this and future cases.

 Alexander Hollins wrote:

okay, WHERE was it published, is the big question.

 At the Defense Intelligence Agency, document DIA-08-0911-003, like it
 says. Maybe I misunderstand this comment.

 I suppose you mean WHERE on the web was it published. Nowhere as far
 as I know. We have lots of documents at LENR-CANR published by
 various government agencies, China Lake, BARC, the NCFI, various
 universities and so on, which were never published by them on the
 web. Only by me. Still, they are published. No one questions their
 pedigree or legitimacy. (No one, that is, except for some skeptical
 nutcases who claimed I foged them. As if I could forge thousands of
 pages of technical papers!)


I'm only saying that I think that's a valid option for them at the
 moment,
at least with regard to that document.

 Valid, schmalid. It is just silly. If they don't want to believe this
 is a genuine document, that's their problem. They will never allow a
 link to a document like this anyway. They can't link to my copy
 (Wikipedia automatically rejects links to LENR-CANR.org) and they
 wouldn't want to link to Krivit's copy.


The latest comments on the wikipedia talk page are a little bit
 confusing,
to say the least.

 They are. That's because Krivit uploaded a short message from the DIA
 to him, and to me, actually, asking us to remove the copy. That's
 kind of embarrassing and I was hoping the subject would not come up.
 Apparently it was not slated for full release until yesterday
 afternoon. I thought it was okay to upload. The cover letter said:
 The paper is unclassified so feel free to forward it to whomever you
 think would be interested . . . So I figured that's everyone in the
 world. I uploaded and informed the author. As I noted here, I asked
 the DIA for a better copy in Acrobat text format.

 Anyway, yesterday before lunch they told me it was not fully, 100%
 released yet so please remove it. After lunch they sent another
 message saying don't worry, everything is fine now, leave it. That
 message was copied to various people in the DIA so I am sure it is okay.

 (By the way, they said they can't provide it in Acrobat text format. A
 shame.)

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


Steven V Johnson wrote:


 Ask the authors, I guess.

You guess???


How else?

I guess you could ask the Agency but I expect your request would be 
lost in the shuffle.




 I am sure of the pedigree because the authors sent me the document.

That's a good point. Thanks for revealing that little tidbit.


I said that a couple of days ago:

I informed the author there are some spelling errors, and footnotes 
#11 and #14 are the same. I asked her to provide another copy of the 
paper in text Acrobat format. So maybe I will get a copy the easy way.


Unfortunately -- as I just mentioned -- she said they can't provide 
it that format.


Anyway, I do not go around secretly uploading stuff. It says on the 
first screen at LENR-CANR.org: [This site] features a library of 
more than 1,000 original scientific papers reprinted with permission 
from the authors and publishers. I mean that. The only authors I 
have not asked are dead ones. I have uploaded a few papers by 
deceased authors. People I knew well, who would not have objected.


I couldn't get away with secretly uploading stuff. People would find 
out, and tell me to remove the offending document. We get 4,000 to 
7,000 visits per week.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


Mauro Lacy wrote:


And also raising the question of how to deal with government documents
which are unclassified, but not published on the internet. A good point to
be made in Wikipedia, I think, for this and future cases.


As far as I know, the ERAB report is not available on any government 
agency web site, and the 2004 DoE report was removed by the DoE years 
ago. But the skeptics would never remove these references just 
because they are not published in official web sites!


The ERAB report is from the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) 
organization. Apparently, that is official enough for the skeptics.


Funny story: I copied it from NCAS and noted that fact on the first 
page of my version. They went ballistic because I inserted a page in 
front of the thing telling where I got it, and what I think of it. 
They accused me of forging and possibly changing the content. That's 
preposterous, because the link to the original is RIGHT THERE, on the 
page, first thing at the top. What kind of forger would give you a 
link back to the original?!? That would be like going into a bank to 
cash a check and saying: By the way, I just mugged that old lady in 
the parking lot, stole her checkbook, and forged her signature. Is 
that okay with you?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

Jed sed:

 I guess you could ask the Agency but I expect your request would be
 lost in the shuffle.

and...

 I am sure of the pedigree because the authors sent me the document.

For which I sed:

 That's a good point. Thanks for revealing that little tidbit.

For which Jed sed:

 I said that a couple of days ago:

Ah, my fault. lost in the shuffle.

And then Jed sed:

 I informed the author there are some spelling errors, and footnotes
 #11 and #14 are the same. I asked her to provide another copy of the
 paper in text Acrobat format. So maybe I will get a copy the easy way.

I was unclear as to whom you meant as the authors. I'm afraid I'm
doing too many things at the same time to notice the details.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

2009-11-19 Thread Steven Krivit


At 06:47 AM 11/19/2009, you wrote:

okay, WHERE was it published, is the big question.


This is a good question. Here is the answer: Beverly Barnhart distributed 
it on Monday with the following note:



OK folks,

The LENR paper (below) finally got released on Friday and should have

gone into the OSD (at least the ATL) read books this morning.  The paper is

unclassified so feel free to forward it to whomever you think would be

interested and anyone on our STIC working groups that I have missed.  Thanks

for all those who helped with this one.  Let me know if you can't open the

attachment since it got transferred from the JWICs to the low side.



 Bev



Bev Barnhart

Energy Technology Steward

DIA, Defense Warning Office, DWO-4

[phone numbers redacted]

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

2009-11-19 Thread Steven Krivit


At 07:21 AM 11/19/2009, you wrote:

Steven V Johnson wrote:


...but that does not answer the principal question: How does one
verify its pedigree?

For those of us (particularly me!) who may not be as quick witted as
you appear to be can you clarify how you went about verifying the
presumed legitimacy of this report?


I spoke with Barnhart extensively on Monday. I also spoke with Pat 
McDaniels. There is a story to how this document was created and the 
initiative behind it. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to write. 
But I will. Promise.


Other news is brewingstay tuned...the storm should blow in by the 
weekend


Steve

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

2009-11-19 Thread Alexander Hollins

okay, so when they publish the read books, there is an actual printed
volume to go with it, yes?  so get the name of it, if not simply OSD
Read Book, and the volume number.  boom, proper citation.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Steven Krivit
stev...@newenergytimes.com wrote:
 At 06:47 AM 11/19/2009, you wrote:

 okay, WHERE was it published, is the big question.

 This is a good question. Here is the answer: Beverly Barnhart distributed it
 on Monday with the following note:


 OK folks,

 The LENR paper (below) finally got released on Friday and should have

 gone into the OSD (at least the ATL) read books this morning.  The paper is

 unclassified so feel free to forward it to whomever you think would be

 interested and anyone on our STIC working groups that I have missed.  Thanks

 for all those who helped with this one.  Let me know if you can't open the

 attachment since it got transferred from the JWICs to the low side.



  Bev



 Bev Barnhart

 Energy Technology Steward

 DIA, Defense Warning Office, DWO-4

 [phone numbers redacted]

[Vo]:NMR and Transmutation

2009-11-19 Thread Chris Zell

Did anyone ever test Brightsen's ideas about transmutation using NMR?  
 
There have been similar claims, as http://www.rexresearch.com/meyernmr/meyer.htm
 
or the Colman/Seddon-Gillespie 'battery'.  I think Brightsen passed away before 
he could pursue his theories.

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


Steven Krivit quoted the distribution letter that I also quoted:


OK folks,

The LENR paper (below) finally got released on Friday and should have
gone into the OSD (at least the ATL) read books this morning.  The paper is
unclassified so feel free to forward it to whomever you think would be
interested . . .


You can see why Steve and I both assumed it would be okay to upload 
it. Besides that, there is no copyright, it says unclassified and 
there is not even a sentence saying please do not distribute. In my 
experience, you can always distribute government documents of this 
nature. I was taken aback to learn that it was not quite fully 
cleared for distribution on Wednesday morning. Anyway, it is now.


- Jed

[Vo]:The DIA people are aware of Lipson's death


This is a sad footnote . . .

The DIA report lists Andrei Lipson as a major Russian researcher, on 
page 5. Lipson deserved to be signaled out. Several people including 
me told the DIA authors that Andrei died on November 1, 13 days 
before the paper was issued. The DIA said they heard that sad news 
but the paper has already been through the review  approval process 
it was too late to change it.


That is entirely understandable.

I hope that Andrei's colleagues are able to continue his fine work.

Mizuno told me he considered Andrei one of the most creative and 
important people in the field.


- Jed

[Vo]:Test

2009-11-19 Thread Horace Heffner


My posts are not making it as of 10 AM AKST.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:The DIA people are aware of Lipson's death


I wrote:


Lipson deserved to be signaled out.


SINGLED out, for goodness sake.

- Jed




 Several people including me told the DIA authors that Andrei died 
on November 1, 13 days before the paper was issued. The DIA said 
they heard that sad news but the paper has already been through the 
review  approval process it was too late to change it.


That is entirely understandable.

I hope that Andrei's colleagues are able to continue his fine work.

Mizuno told me he considered Andrei one of the most creative and 
important people in the field.


- Jed

[Vo]:Alternate Star Trek Pilot

2009-11-19 Thread Terry Blanton

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/15/alternate-star-trek.html

Soon to be released.  Even has different theme and lead in by Kirk.

Terry

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

2009-11-19 Thread Terry Blanton

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:



 In my experience, you can always distribute government documents of this
 nature.


And why not . . . we paid for it.  :-)

Terry

[Vo]:How to confirm that a document at LENR-CANR.org is real

People here raised this question in earnest, and
I have been mulling it over. It is a legitimate concern after all.

From time to time, skeptics have asked me to
prove that a document is real or that I actually
have permission to upload it by providing them
with an e-mail. I have told them I do not care
what they believe. Also, that I never reveal
personal e-mails, and it is easy to fake an
e-mail in any case, so this would prove nothing.
I have no qualms about brushing off skeptics, but
let me give a more considered reply here.

You can confirm most of the documents at
LENR-CANR.org by going to library and looking up
the original printed version. It is more
difficult to confirm something like the BARC
report because it is out of print, and because India is far away.

Another obvious method is to ask the author or
co-author. When I wrote ask the authors in
response to that question I was not being
facetious. If I had any doubt about any of the
documents at LENR-CANR I would do this, first
thing. [1] It may not be easy to find someone in
the Defense Intelligence Agency but some of the
scientists who contributed to the document are
easy to find. (But please do not find them and bother them. They are busy!)

In fine arts, curators use the word provenance
to describe the place of origin; derivation, or
proof of authenticity or of past ownership.
They look for documents or physical evidence.
Historians and detectives use similar methods.
They examine documents, photographs, and they
question people to establish a claim. They also
make common sense assumptions about how people
behave. They like to use documents that do not
originate with the author, claimant or criminal
suspect, especially documents such as phone books
and old newspapers which no one could to forge.
For example, to prove that Obama really was born
in Hawaii, they cite a newspaper notice
announcing his birth. The assumption is that it
is impossible to insert a fake old newspaper into
a library and that on the day Obama was born no
one knew that he would someday become famous.

In the case of the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) document it is easy to come up with such
methods to confirm that it is real. Here are some
of the ways you can do this --

A common sense assumption:

I am not crazy and I am not trying to get myself
arrested on charges of stealing or forging a U.S. federal government document.

Some easily verified matters of fact:

It is dead simple to find me. I have a unique
name. My name, address and telephone number and
e-mail address is on the front of the
LENR-CANR.org front page. My home address is in
the Atlanta telephone book. To put it another
way, LENR-CANR.org is the opposite of http://wikileaks.org

It is easy to confirm that the co-authors and
contributors to this paper know me, and are
familiar with LENR-CANR.org. You can find
photographs of Boss, McKubre, Forsley and I
together. Many people have seen us in
conversation. They have referred to me in some of
their papers and letters. The DIA document itself
lists LENR-CANR.org in some of the references, so
obviously the authors and reviewers of the document know about LENR-CANR.org.

From this you can reach some firm conclusions:

Suppose I were to upload a fake document
attributed to these authors. Whether I faked it
myself or whether I was duped by someone else,
the authors would soon find the document, and demand that I remove it.

More to the point, the DIA would soon find it.
They would also demand that I remove it, and
since their demands are backed by the force of
law they are compelling, to say the least.

How would they find the document? Well, first of
all, they are intelligence agency. They probably
have extensive means of finding things. Even if
they do not, anyone can find anything on the net
with Google. Do a Google search for Defense
Intelligence Agency cold fusion and bingo, up
pops the front page of LENR-CANR.org, item #5,
with the title of the report on the Google
screen: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report
on cold fusion: Technology Forecast: Worldwide
Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions
Increasing and Gaining [2] Scroll down and
there's my name and phone number . . . So they would call me.

Second, even if you are not an intelligence
agency it is easy to find out that I have a copy
of this report. I have a link to my copy in bold
letters on the front page of LENR-CANR.org. We
know that the DIA people looked at LENR-CANR.org,
because it is listed as a source in their paper.
It is reasonable to think they may look again
soon and see their name on the front page. In
bold, with a blue hyperlink. I am vigorously
promoting the document and inserting links to it
elsewhere on the web, for example in the New York Times:

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?sort=newestoffset=2

(By the way, if you are

[Vo]:ASU professor creates joint [solar] invention with MIT

2009-11-19 Thread Horace Heffner


http://asunews.asu.edu/20091118_moore

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

[Vo]:Not sure the DIA document will have a big impact


Steven V Johnson wrote:


Surely you realize the DIA report is NOT about to be ignored.


It is not being ignored but it may not have a big impact. So far, 136 
people have downloaded it from LENR-CANR.org. That is not much 
considering the fact that I have featured it on the front page, where 
~1,200 people have seen it (I think).


If it does have a major impact that will be rather odd because there 
are more authoritative scientific documents published by places like 
Los Alamos, SRI and China Lake, that have not made much of an impact. 
They should be more persuasive. I am not knocking Ms. Barnhart but 
after all, Storms et al. know a heck of a lot more about this subject 
than she does, and they have published many papers. It seems odd that 
with regard to a scientific finding, people would put more trust in 
an intelligence agency than a world-class laboratory, but perhaps they do.


I can understand why mass media outlets such as CBS 60 Minutes 
would have a large impact on public opinion. It is because many 
people watch television, and because the mass media -- especially 
broadcast media -- has a certain cachet or glamour that makes people 
believe whatever they say. Judging by the traffic at LENR-CANR.org 
and the comments I have read, it seems that even scientists are more 
inclined to believe 60 Minutes than J. Electroanal. Chem. That's 
odd but I guess it is human nature.


Does this same sort of cachet apply to intelligence agencies? We 
shall soon find out.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Not sure the DIA document will have a big impact

Jed sez:

...

 I can understand why mass media outlets such as CBS 60 Minutes would have
 a large impact on public opinion. It is because many people watch
 television, and because the mass media -- especially broadcast media -- has
 a certain cachet or glamour that makes people believe whatever they say.
 Judging by the traffic at LENR-CANR.org and the comments I have read, it
 seems that even scientists are more inclined to believe 60 Minutes than J.
 Electroanal. Chem. That's odd but I guess it is human nature.

 Does this same sort of cachet apply to intelligence agencies? We shall soon
 find out.

Indeed, it is hard to predict.

Considering your recent comments on how foreign intelligence agencies
went about collecting information, often through mundane sources,
i.e., through mill-of-the-run newspaper articles, etc...

My point is that it would be unwise to ignore the political impact
such reports have the potential of generating. Ironically, it's not
always the accrued scientific evidence that's important. It's whom is
saying it and how many are willing to believe the whom saying it.

We're the government! Trust us!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Not sure the DIA document will have a big impact


I wrote:


Surely you realize the DIA report is NOT about to be ignored.


It is not being ignored but it may not have a big impact. So far, 
136 people have downloaded it from LENR-CANR.org.


I realize that it may be having an impact inside the government. I 
wouldn't know anything about that. All I can measure is whether it is 
causing excitement on the Internet and among LENR-CANR readers. My 
other comments apply to government decision makers as much as to the 
public. With regard to a scientific claim, it would be odd if 
decision makers are more influenced by an intelligence analysis than 
by scientific papers.


Odd but not unbelievable.

I said, I am not knocking Ms. Barnhart but after all Storms et al. 
know a heck of a lot more about this subject than she does . . . 
Then again she did get advice from some heavyweight experts and 
people from many agencies:


Coordinated with DIA/DRI, CPT, DWO, DOE/IN, US Navy SPAWAR/Pacific 
and U.S. NSWC/Dahlgren, VA.


She is a smart cookie. This report does speak for experts in many 
agencies. Plus, you can see it was not thrown together overnight. As 
I said, we have melancholy proof that it was written before November 
1, when poor Andrei died.


So maybe it will have impact. It sure can't hurt!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to confirm that a document at LENR-CANR.org is real

This is a good summary.
Maybe you could publish a version of it somewhere at lenr-canr.org. It
surely will not hurt, and could help first comers with doubts about the
validity of the sources and the information presented.

I never doubted the document was legit. In the name of truth, what
happened was that I presented the information to a skeptical friend, and
he came up with those questionings. So I decided to post those
questionings (why is not on an official internet site, etc. etc.) on
vortex. Also because of what I read in the wikipedia comment pages,
which sparked my curiosity.

Thanks,
Mauro


Jed Rothwell wrote:
 People here raised this question in earnest, and I have been mulling
 it over. It is a legitimate concern after all.
  
 From time to time, skeptics have asked me to prove that a document is
 real or that I actually have permission to upload it by providing them
 with an e-mail. I have told them I do not care what they believe.
 Also, that I never reveal personal e-mails, and it is easy to fake an
 e-mail in any case, so this would prove nothing. I have no qualms
 about brushing off skeptics, but let me give a more considered reply here.
  
 You can confirm most of the documents at LENR-CANR.org by going to
 library and looking up the original printed version. It is more
 difficult to confirm something like the BARC report because it is out
 of print, and because India is far away.
  
 Another obvious method is to ask the author or co-author. When I wrote
 ask the authors in response to that question I was not being
 facetious. If I had any doubt about any of the documents at LENR-CANR
 I would do this, first thing. [1] It may not be easy to find someone
 in the Defense Intelligence Agency but some of the scientists who
 contributed to the document are easy to find. (But please do not find
 them and bother them. They are busy!)
  
 In fine arts, curators use the word provenance to describe the
 place of origin; derivation, or proof of authenticity or of past
 ownership. They look for documents or physical evidence. Historians
 and detectives use similar methods. They examine documents,
 photographs, and they question people to establish a claim. They also
 make common sense assumptions about how people behave. They like to
 use documents that do not originate with the author, claimant or
 criminal suspect, especially documents such as phone books and old
 newspapers which no one could to forge. For example, to prove that
 Obama really was born in Hawaii, they cite a newspaper notice
 announcing his birth. The assumption is that it is impossible to
 insert a fake old newspaper into a library and that on the day Obama
 was born no one knew that he would someday become famous.
  
 In the case of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document it is
 easy to come up with such methods to confirm that it is real. Here are
 some of the ways you can do this --
  
 A common sense assumption:
  
 I am not crazy and I am not trying to get myself arrested on charges
 of stealing or forging a U.S. federal government document.
  
 Some easily verified matters of fact:
  
 It is dead simple to find me. I have a unique name. My name, address
 and telephone number and e-mail address is on the front of the
 LENR-CANR.org front page. My home address is in the Atlanta telephone
 book. To put it another way, LENR-CANR.org is the opposite of
 http://wikileaks.org
 http://wikileaks.org/ 
 It is easy to confirm that the co-authors and contributors to this
 paper know me, and are familiar with LENR-CANR.org. You can find
 photographs of Boss, McKubre, Forsley and I together. Many people have
 seen us in conversation. They have referred to me in some of their
 papers and letters. The DIA document itself lists LENR-CANR.org in
 some of the references, so obviously the authors and reviewers of the
 document know about LENR-CANR.org.
  
 From this you can reach some firm conclusions:
  
 Suppose I were to upload a fake document attributed to these authors.
 Whether I faked it myself or whether I was duped by someone else, the
 authors would soon find the document, and demand that I remove it.
  
 More to the point, the DIA would soon find it. They would also demand
 that I remove it, and since their demands are backed by the force of
 law they are compelling, to say the least.
  
 How would they find the document? Well, first of all, they are
 intelligence agency. They probably have extensive means of finding
 things. Even if they do not, anyone can find anything on the net with
 Google. Do a Google search for Defense Intelligence Agency cold
 fusion and bingo, up pops the front page of LENR-CANR.org, item #5,
 with the title of the report on the Google screen: U.S. /Defense
 Intelligence Agency/ report on /cold fusion/: Technology Forecast:
 Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and
 Gaining … [2] Scroll down and there's my name and phone number . . .
 So they would call me.
  
 Second, even

Re: [Vo]:How to confirm that a document at LENR-CANR.org is real

Mauro sez:

 This is a good summary.
 Maybe you could publish a version of it somewhere at lenr-canr.org. It
 surely will not hurt, and could help first comers with doubts about the
 validity of the sources and the information presented.

...

I agree!

Write it up, Jed!

That is, during one of your copious moments of free time. ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs

2009-11-19 Thread Horace Heffner


Some typos corrected below.

On Nov 18, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


I wrote:

The reactions appear to be completely independent of one another. I  
base that on the patterns of heat shown in IR cameras. Also the  
damage and the autoradiographs. . . .


The point I meant to make is that with a chain reaction from one  
area on the cathode to other areas, caused by neutrons or something  
analogous to photons in a laser, I would expect to see the reaction  
begin at one spot and then spread out from there, perhaps in waves.


U ... this is what I wrote about, a genuine chain reaction.  Not  
for all cold fusion processes, but as a side effect, just due to the  
fact cold fusion can be expected to build up hyperons, and these  
hyperons are capable of chain reactions triggered by cosmic rays.  If  
you read my paper you should be able to see this:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

A small cosmic ray initiated chain reaction event can be expected to  
be all over long before the metal involved shows any outward signs of  
melting or evaporating.  The collective motions of the mass of metal  
atoms is slow compared to the rate at which a photon based or near  
light speed particle based chain reaction can speed through the  
lattice.  The effects of the heating, i.e. liquid metal motion and  
gas release, follow after the chain reaction is over.



Instead, you see random spots appear and disappear, all over the  
cathode. The spots would be coordinated over time in some pattern,  
not random. As the cathode heats up you do see more and more hot  
spots, but they are not adjacent or coordinated.


Exactly what you would expect from small cosmic ray initiated chain  
reaction events.




Here is a macroscopic mousetrap chain reaction that starts at one  
spot and spreads in waves to the rest of the material:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxzPN-vdP_0NR=1

Here is another, not as clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLv8Qflg6PQ

When I say waves I mean the reaction runs out of material with  
potential energy in the initial location, so it peters out there  
while spreading out from that spot. You do not see patterns like  
this on cathodes.


Cold fusion reactions also seem to go for a short while at a small  
spot, and then stop for a while. That's what the IR camera shows.


I have serious doubts the camera is actually showing cold fusion  
events.  See below.




When a spot peters out and stops, I do not think it has run out of  
fuel. I assume the NAE is not longer suitable for some reason, for  
a while, and then it becomes suitable again.


- Jed


The fact the sparse hyperons are used up by the chain reaction, and  
then regenerated by CF, makes the theory I proposed fully consistent  
with the above.  However, I suspect the SPAWAR flashes on Pd mesh are  
*not* cold fusion, as noted below,


For a chain reaction of the kind I suggested to occur there has to be  
a high D loading, and more importantly, there has to be a build up of  
low binding energy hyperons sufficient to sustain the chain reaction  
throughout the hot spot.  Hyperons, and possibly stable kaons, were  
suggested to result from highly de-energized cold fusion reactions,  
i.e. deflated hydrogen fusion reactions, that precede the chain  
reaction.  Some of these strange quark containing H/He entities are  
known to have very low (keV order) binding energies. This was noted  
on page 9 ff of:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf

This means a chain reaction can be sustained merely by x-ray  
stimulation of such nuclei, or other keV order stimulation, by high  
energy particles.  A single MeV particle can thus unbind numerous  
hyperons, depending on their local density.  When such hyperons are  
disrupted, more high energy particles are generated which can trigger  
further hyperon disintegrations.  It may be that some mu- muons can  
be generated from some hyperon disintegrations,  thus triggering some  
ordinary muon based cold fusion.  However, if the bulk of  
hyperons release K0 kaons, or produce decay of otherwise stable K0  
kaons, then the bulk of the muons resulting will be neutral.  It  
takes the build-up of a sufficient density of low binding energy  
hyperons to sustain a chain reaction, and they are not the triggers  
but rather a partial fuel.


It is also notable that the ability of a hyperon chain reaction to  
actually *sustain*, to not be a fast event, is affected not only by  
the local density of hyperons, but also by the volume and shape of  
hyperon dense material, and its ability to sustain hyperon generation  
through ordinary cold fusion.  One difficulty is such a reaction is  
very difficult to moderate, so it has to essentially proceed in small  
controlled bangs.


Once a critical density of hyperons is obtained in a locality, a  
single cosmic ray can clearly set off a chain reaction, so fuel  
storage is not feasible.  The hyperons

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs


At 10:08 AM 11/18/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
To my knowledge, there have been no cold fusion experiments at 
cryogenic temperatures.


Muon-catalyzed fusion. Alvarez used a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber, 
didn't he?

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs

2009-11-19 Thread John Berry

Does heat speed up the rate the muon does it's job freeing it up sooner?  Of
course that goes against the cryogenic thing.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

 At 10:08 AM 11/18/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 To my knowledge, there have been no cold fusion experiments at cryogenic
 temperatures.


 Muon-catalyzed fusion. Alvarez used a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber,
 didn't he?

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


At 08:24 AM 11/19/2009, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:

They have been trumped by a government document and know their 
previous positions are now all compromised. They built a house of 
cards and here comes the wind  :_)


They have been trumped by a government document and know their 
previous positions are now all compromised. They built a house of 
cards and here comes the wind  :_)


Hard to say. The editor aptly known as Hipocrite was, of course, 
going to first look for how he could exclude the material. True to 
form for this faction of editors, they will raise one argument, then, 
when that argument is demolished, another comes, then another. At 
some point it becomes way too obvious what's going on and they will 
lose credibility, but it takes a lot of work to get the matter to that point.


Jed may have watched what happened when we got a page on 
lenr-canr.org whitelisted so it could be used as a reference in the 
Martin Fleischmann article. JzG, the admin who had blacklisted 
lenr-canr.org, of course, removed it, with argument A. Well, problem 
with argument A, just not true. Removed it again with argument B, and 
this went on through several iterations. Okay, I started an 
examination of all the arguments, made it as complete as I could, on 
the Talk page, and then went over each argument in detail, and sought 
consensus, not on the overall conclusion -- they had too many 
arguments -- but on the argument itself. Eventually, they were all 
accepted by consensus as invalid or not controlling that situation. 
So we got the convenience link to lenr-canr.org. Later, Hipocrite -- 
or was it Mathsci? -- yanked it on the grounds that Jed didn't want 
it used (a wishful-thinking interpretation of something Jed wrote). 
Of course, Jed doesn't get to decide what Wikipedia uses, they should 
have known that, and Jed didn't really mind! An administrator, this 
time, put it back.


It's possible to get things done on Wikipedia, but the cost is huge. 
Probably not worth it, at least not worth it for anything other than 
fairly disinterested tweaks. Write better articles elsewhere. The 
Wikipedia article will change, there are quite a few editors there 
who realized the problems but who aren't sufficiently motivated to 
slog through the muck with people like Hipocrite.


So, first objection: source not reliable. That, of course, is based 
on an opinion that the source is New Energy Times. Not reliable? Not 
reliable for *what*? NET isn't routinely considered a reliable 
source for Wikipedia because of an alleged fringe point of view, but 
that doesn't mean that it's not reliable for *anything.* NET has no 
reputation at all for forging documents. JzG tried to claim this 
about lenr-canr.org, that's one of the arguments that got utterly 
demolished, it was based on deceptive reporting. Really, if the 
Arbitration Committee ever looks close enough at the editing of these 
jokers, they'd be banned. Except that the Arbitration Committee 
doesn't have the means or inclination to actually look. Too much work.


No, NET is not the source, the Defense Intelligence Agency is, and 
specifically the named office, I forget.


So ... then it's claimed that this is a primary source. Nope. 
Secondary source, published by a reputable publisher, that tries to 
get the facts right. They either don't really know Wikipedia policy, 
or are just wikilawyering with it, finding any excuse they can to 
exclude what they don't like.


They will also try to impeach it by claiming that the authors or 
sources are fringe. Again, a misunderstanding. The reliability of a 
source depends on the publisher, not the author. (Reliable in 
wikispeak doesn't mean reliable in ordinary language. It really 
means notable. Something in reliable source can be very 
unreliable, in fact, but it should not be *excluded*. Rather, it 
should be balanced, and if it can't be balanced with source of 
adequate quality, tough. One of the tricks of the anti-CF contingent 
is to demand the highest possible quality for sources that seem to 
support cold fusion, while accepting weak off-hand comments in 
tertiary sources, or articles on other topics where an author, not an 
expert in the field, tosses in a comment.


With the Fleischmann paper I mentioned above, it was his paper 
presented to an ICCF, published by Tsinghua University. Eventually, 
the question was raised, was the paper hosted at lenr-canr.org a true 
copy? Basically, the argument prevailed that the likelihood of any 
significant difference was so low that it could be disregarded. To 
satisfy a stickler, a note was added to the reference that it was an 
unverified copy, because nobody participating there could testify 
that they'd seen the article and it was the same.


Of course, tons of genuine crap exist in sources all over the wiki. 
I've seen peer-reviewed articles cited as evidence for the exact 
opposite of what the paper actually said straining at a gnat and 
swallowing a fly. Horse?

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


At 09:24 AM 11/19/2009, Mauro Lacy wrote:


In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still
argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a
fake/it's not official.


It's certainly desirable to have a direct reference, but, in fact, 
anyone who trusts the document sufficiently could just cite it. 
Personally, I'd probably want to verify in some way that the document 
has actually been published. That could have been a leaked draft, for 
example. Krivit didn't state the provenance, and it's quite possible 
he's not at liberty to do so, in which case we'd have to consider 
that it hasn't been published yet.


Notice that the thread was started by an editor who just wanted to 
drop it in the pond and see if there was a splash. She's pretty busy, 
I understand, not likely to pursue this immediately. So it was indeed 
pretty funny. Obviously, the paper is of interest and could rather 
significantly shift the article, but it's really more like a breaker 
of a log jam. There is plenty of reliable source, of the highest 
quality, that's been excluded for a long time.


And there is plain horse-puckey from reliable source that is, of 
course, in the article. Old secondary source referring to the 
situation in the early 1990s, presented as if it were true about all 
the corpus of work that has taken place since then, when it wasn't 
really *ever* accurate.

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


At 09:41 AM 11/19/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was 
released on Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished 
material?!? Do you think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency?


How did you get a copy? The copy I saw was on NET, and no provenance was given.


In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still
argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a
fake/it's not official.


By that standard we would not believe the ERAB report is real, or 
the comments made by the 2004 DoE reviewers. Or any of hundreds of 
skeptical papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But 
the skeptics would never apply that standard to those documents 
because they support the skeptical point of view.


Actually, they don't accept the reviewer comments. That's actually 
part of the problem. They don't even accept the body of the 2004 
review, they just want to rely on that comment at the end that the 
conclusions were much the same as in 1989. Which is true, of course. 
Both 1989 and 2004 came to the same conclusion, as to what the DoE 
was interested in, theoretically: whether or not to fund research. No 
focused program, but specific grants under existing programs to 
resolve the obvious questions.


But that statement applied to the body of the report and the position 
of the panel is preposterous. There was a world of difference between 
the 1989 and 2004 reviews. Only a little more, and the 2004 would 
have been a majority cold fusion is likely conclusion. In 1989, 
support for CF was very weak, no more than about two panelists, 
including the co-chair who demanded the relatively lukewarm 
statement. Nobody had to make that demand, to threaten to resign, in 2004.



 Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote:

[The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not 
notable unless they are adressed by secondary sources.


He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason.


That's right. In any case, that report is a secondary source 
analysis. It's not peer-reviewed, perhaps, though that's not clear. 
It's an ordinary secondary source, better than a media source, 
probably weaker than something like the ACS Sourcebook. In other 
words, there is already lots of secondary source reviewing cold 
fusion, but they keep making up excuses. Obviously, Marwan and Krivit 
managed to hoodwink those at the American Chemical Society who are 
responsible for the Symposium series. And somehow that has managed to 
escape notice, so that those con artists are publishing another volume.


Really, their self-deception gets more and more complicated.

The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss 
or ignore evidence they do not want to see.


Has Denial ever been different? Religious note: this is the meaning 
of kufr, in the Qur'an. The word is translated, often, as 
unbelief, but that's a bad translation. The root means to cover. 
Denial is a good translation. Not The unbelievers, but the people 
of denial. And denial means that they deny what they actually see or 
would know if they reflected.


(Not intending any religious argument here. There is a form of 
skepticism which is essential and which was, I'll assert, 
characteristic of a major early sect of Islam, dominant for a short 
time until the tide of politics turned, they overplayed their hand 
against the other groups. The Mu'tazila, which means the 
postponers. On matters not clear, they postpone judgment. To apply 
this to cold fusion, I'd raise the name of Nate Hoffman, who is, I 
know, one of Jed's favorite people. Hoffman was clearly skeptical, 
but didn't appear to worship his skepticism, and acknowledged the 
existence of some interesting evidence. In other words, he didn't 
close the book with a conclusion of bogosity, he left it open. May he 
rest in peace.)

Re: [Vo]:Cold fusion bombs

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


 To my knowledge, there have been no cold fusion experiments at cryogenic
 temperatures.


 Muon-catalyzed fusion. Alvarez used a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber,
 didn't he?


I meant the metal lattice Fleischmann-Pons effect.

But as it happens, I was wrong. I forgot there have been experiments with Ti
chips cooled in liquid nitrogen. Such as:

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MenloveHOreproducib.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


At 10:47 AM 11/19/2009, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


I certainly do not dispute this. However, and as I'm sure you know,
many skeptics use circuitous reasoning. They will refuse to accept the
basis of such information because they have already banned the
original sources of these reports from Wikipedia. It makes life
easier for them.


Actually, the situation is a little more complex than that. 
Lenr-canr.org was originally blacklisted on Wikipedia. The original 
sources weren't banned. Lenr-canr.org isn't (generally) an original 
source. When I challenged the blacklisting -- I got involved in this 
as pure process, I was neutral on cold fusion -- JzG, a highly and 
very personally involved administrator who had made the blacklist 
entry entirely on his own -- very unusual -- went to Meta 
(meta.wikipedia.org) where the global blacklist is maintained. 
Wikimedia projects use this list, which was designed mostly to 
prevent spam from being added to projects.


Any local project can have its own blacklist, and can also have a 
whitelist, which lists exceptions, all the way from individual page 
exceptions to entire site exceptions (i.e., meta has blacklisted, but 
the local project wants to allow links to the site.)


Now, JzG ended up, in my first sojourn before the Arbitration 
Committee, being admonished for his blacklisting, and the Committee 
decided -- properly, in my view -- that the blacklist wasn't to be 
used to ban web sites based on their point of view.


However, the Arbitration Committee has no authority over meta, it is 
only concerned with the English Wikipedia. In any case, the 
Arbitration Committee doesn't make specific content decisions, it 
only rules on process and editor behavior. So the meta blacklisting 
of lenr-canr.org still stands.


The administrators at meta can be quite obstinate, they dislike 
reversing themselves. The decision to grant the blacklisting 
requested by JzG was an error; the evidence he presented was 
preposterous. However, there is a path to delisting: if pages from 
the site are locally whitelisted, enough of them, and actually used, 
the meta administrators may consider delisting. So ... I requested 
whitelisting for a series of pages on lenr-canr.org, for use for 
convenience links, so that people can find copies to read easily. 
And nearly all these requests were granted. Some are being used. 
However, at about this point, I was banned from the article as a 
result of Hipocrite's behavior, which created a situation which was 
used by the administrator William M. Connolley to ban me. He didn't 
give a reason. He also ended up losing his administrative privileges over it.


But, meanwhile, maybe two dozen editors, largely loosely affiliated 
with a group of anti-fringe-science and anti-pseudoscience editors, 
piled in to complain about my behavior. ArbComm bought it. After all, 
if I'd made so many editors upset, I must be doing something wrong. 
It's a convenient way to avoid doing much actual research. There was 
one arbitrator who actually read the evidence, and he was assigned to 
start drafting decisions. I thought at that point that it was about 
pure victory. But ... then the, er, rest of the committee, a certain 
faction, showed up and completely disregarded what he'd done. Hence 
I'm site-banned for three months, topic-banned from cold fusion for a 
year, joining the good company of Pcarbonn, who comes off his ban 
next month, and prohibited from intervening in disputes where I'm not 
a primary party. I'm still trying to figure that one out. They are 
trying to save me some time? It had nothing to do with the case! I'd 
done a bit of mediation, and it had been successful.


I'm lucky. There are others still caught in that multiplayer on-line 
role-playing game. Instead of searching for secondary sources to 
write a tertiary source, I'm doing some research myself, from a bit 
of a new angle. I might get my first cell cooking this month, almost 
everything is here, enough to start testing stuff.

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


At 10:56 AM 11/19/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Valid, schmalid. It is just silly. If they don't want to believe 
this is a genuine document, that's their problem. They will never 
allow a link to a document like this anyway. They can't link to my 
copy (Wikipedia automatically rejects links to LENR-CANR.org) and 
they wouldn't want to link to Krivit's copy.


They can link to Krivit's copy. I got newenergytimes.com delisted, it 
had only been locally blacklisted.


If the only copy were at lenr-canr.org, it could be whitelisted. I'm 
not banned from meta, and I do intend to go there and request 
delisting of lenr-canr.org. I just haven't gotten around to it. It's 
not like Wikipedia is this big priority for me any more



The latest comments on the wikipedia talk page are a little bit confusing,
to say the least.


They are. That's because Krivit uploaded a short message from the 
DIA to him, and to me, actually, asking us to remove the copy. 
That's kind of embarrassing and I was hoping the subject would not 
come up. Apparently it was not slated for full release until 
yesterday afternoon. I thought it was okay to upload. The cover 
letter said: The paper is unclassified so feel free to forward it 
to whomever you think would be interested . . . So I figured that's 
everyone in the world. I uploaded and informed the author. As I 
noted here, I asked the DIA for a better copy in Acrobat text format.


Cool.

Anyway, yesterday before lunch they told me it was not fully, 100% 
released yet so please remove it. After lunch they sent another 
message saying don't worry, everything is fine now, leave it. That 
message was copied to various people in the DIA so I am sure it is okay.


(By the way, they said they can't provide it in Acrobat text format. A shame.)


Can they provide it in any text format at all? What century is this?

In any case, the information we'd want is how a member of the public 
can obtain a copy of this document. Personally, I'm totally 
satisfied. I was worried, in fact, that it might not have been 
officially released yet, and it seems that concern wasn't entirely 
misplaced. But that problem seems to be over. And, surely, our 
intrepid reporter at New Energy Times will want to know and report 
how an interested member of the public can obtain their very own 
official copy. Or do they have to file an FIA request?

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia

2009-11-19 Thread John Berry

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

 At 09:41 AM 11/19/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 It was published by the Agency. Just not on the Internet. It was released
 on Friday the 13th. Do you think I would upload unpublished material?!? Do
 you think I want to get in trouble with a Federal agency?


 How did you get a copy? The copy I saw was on NET, and no provenance was
 given.


He has said it many times.
He was given it directly by the Authors of the report.

In other words if you take Jed's word for it it is almost without question
genuine and if you don't then expect him to be investigated.




  In my opninion, if this reference is not presented, an skeptic can still
 argument, with a reasonable level of doubt, that the document is a
 fake/it's not official.


 By that standard we would not believe the ERAB report is real, or the
 comments made by the 2004 DoE reviewers. Or any of hundreds of skeptical
 papers published before 2000 that are not on the web. But the skeptics would
 never apply that standard to those documents because they support the
 skeptical point of view.


 Actually, they don't accept the reviewer comments. That's actually part of
 the problem. They don't even accept the body of the 2004 review, they just
 want to rely on that comment at the end that the conclusions were much the
 same as in 1989. Which is true, of course. Both 1989 and 2004 came to the
 same conclusion, as to what the DoE was interested in, theoretically:
 whether or not to fund research. No focused program, but specific grants
 under existing programs to resolve the obvious questions.

 But that statement applied to the body of the report and the position of
 the panel is preposterous. There was a world of difference between the 1989
 and 2004 reviews. Only a little more, and the 2004 would have been a
 majority cold fusion is likely conclusion. In 1989, support for CF was
 very weak, no more than about two panelists, including the co-chair who
 demanded the relatively lukewarm statement. Nobody had to make that demand,
 to threaten to resign, in 2004.


   Along the same lines, at Wikipedia Hipocryte wrote:

 [The DIA document is] a primary source. Primary sources are not notable
 unless they are adressed by secondary sources.

 He did not dismiss the 2004 DoE report for that reason.


 That's right. In any case, that report is a secondary source analysis. It's
 not peer-reviewed, perhaps, though that's not clear. It's an ordinary
 secondary source, better than a media source, probably weaker than something
 like the ACS Sourcebook. In other words, there is already lots of secondary
 source reviewing cold fusion, but they keep making up excuses. Obviously,
 Marwan and Krivit managed to hoodwink those at the American Chemical Society
 who are responsible for the Symposium series. And somehow that has managed
 to escape notice, so that those con artists are publishing another volume.

 Really, their self-deception gets more and more complicated.


  The skeptics will come up with one excuse after another to dismiss or
 ignore evidence they do not want to see.


 Has Denial ever been different? Religious note: this is the meaning of
 kufr, in the Qur'an. The word is translated, often, as unbelief, but
 that's a bad translation. The root means to cover. Denial is a good
 translation. Not The unbelievers, but the people of denial. And denial
 means that they deny what they actually see or would know if they reflected.

 (Not intending any religious argument here. There is a form of skepticism
 which is essential and which was, I'll assert, characteristic of a major
 early sect of Islam, dominant for a short time until the tide of politics
 turned, they overplayed their hand against the other groups. The Mu'tazila,
 which means the postponers. On matters not clear, they postpone judgment.
 To apply this to cold fusion, I'd raise the name of Nate Hoffman, who is, I
 know, one of Jed's favorite people. Hoffman was clearly skeptical, but
 didn't appear to worship his skepticism, and acknowledged the existence of
 some interesting evidence. In other words, he didn't close the book with a
 conclusion of bogosity, he left it open. May he rest in peace.)

Re: [Vo]:Hilarious response to DIA paper in Wikipedia


At 11:28 AM 11/19/2009, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Mauro Lacy wrote:


And also raising the question of how to deal with government documents
which are unclassified, but not published on the internet. A good point to
be made in Wikipedia, I think, for this and future cases.


As far as I know, the ERAB report is not available on any government 
agency web site, and the 2004 DoE report was removed by the DoE 
years ago. But the skeptics would never remove these references just 
because they are not published in official web sites!


The ERAB report is from the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) 
organization. Apparently, that is official enough for the skeptics.


You're beating a dead horse, Jed. The principle of excluding copies 
from lenr-canr.org because it's supposedly a fringe web site was 
totally trounced. It was contrary to policy in the first place, and 
to Arbitration Committee decisions. I wasn't out on a limb when I 
objected to the blacklisting, I was just following policy, and ran 
into obstinate refusal to comply. They got burned, I got liberated.


Funny story: I copied it from NCAS and noted that fact on the first 
page of my version. They went ballistic because I inserted a page in 
front of the thing telling where I got it, and what I think of it. 
They accused me of forging and possibly changing the content.


They was JzG. A few people repeated the argument, later, but, Jed, 
this was thoroughly considered and that argument was rejected. It is 
cited from NCAS because it's a more original source. If it were 
hosted directly on a government web site, it would be cited from 
there, or sometimes documents are linked to the Internet Archive. The 
convenience copy is not the source. Your introduction did not make 
the document unusuable, but it did deprecate its use, because of the 
(slight) editorializing. If the NCAS site went dark, I'm sure that 
your copy would be used.


Sure, the skeptics will make this or that fuss, but they lost. And 
they are continuing to lose, because they are not aligned with basic 
Wikipedia policy. The problem with Wikipedia isn't the guidelines and 
policies. While they aren't perfect, they are pretty good. The 
problem is implementation, how policies and guidelines are applied. 
It's a political problem, a problem that I knew how to solve, and the 
solution would destabilize the existing oligarchy (though less than 
they fear, it would really only balance things better and make 
finding balance more efficient), and they were long out to find a 
reason to ban me. Heh! They didn't succeed, I'm only temporarily 
banned, a brief vacation. When I filed the Request for Comment on 
JzG, two-thirds of editors commenting supported banning me. It was an 
RfC on JzG, not me! But the Arbitration Committee basically confirmed 
every point I'd made but it also created and prepared an 
impression of me as a troublemaker.


Nobody likes troublemakers, eh?

 That's preposterous, because the link to the original is RIGHT 
THERE, on the page, first thing at the top. What kind of forger 
would give you a link back to the original?!? That would be like 
going into a bank to cash a check and saying: By the way, I just 
mugged that old lady in the parking lot, stole her checkbook, and 
forged her signature. Is that okay with you?


Dead horse, Jed. That battle was won. Yes, it was preposterous. 
That's why we won.


But so what? The big problem with Wikipedia is that it's 
frighteningly inefficient. You can spend hours upon hours working on 
one sentence, finally find agreement on it. Then weeks later someone 
comes along and removes it or drastically alters it. Imagine writing 
a book where you must continually defend every word.


There are solutions, some of them are coming, some may or may not come.

Re: [Vo]:The DIA people are aware of Lipson's death